Frivolous subject: Affidavits of Truth constitute administratively collectible judgments without court
A frequent unsubstantiated patriot myth is that simply sending someone an “affidavit of truth” creates an obligation on their part to either rebut it or act on it. This is simply FALSE.
1. CIVIL OBLIGATIONS THROUGH INJURY OR CONTRACT
Throughout this site, we emphasize that CIVIL OBLIGATIONS cannot be unilaterally created by the government without your consent. See:
- Lawfully Avoiding Civil Obligations Course, Form #12.040
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf - Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofOfClaim.pdf
The SAME constraints ALSO apply to those sending correspondence to the government to make THEM civilly obligated to perform ANYTHING.
Under the common law and item 1 above, there must either be an INJURY or a CONTRACT in order to compel performance by the party INJURING or BREACHING CONTRACT. This same constraint applies when you are dealing with the government. However, this technique requires the involvement of a court and not an administrative process exclusively.
2. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
In addition to the TWO methods of creating common law obligations under items 1 and 2 above, when dealing with the government there is a THIRD option, which is filing a criminal complaint. This creates a DUTY on the part of the recipient to prosecute the crime and if they DON’T, they become an accessory or a party to it under 18 U.S.C. 3 and 4. However, since the government has the EXCLUSIVE discretion to PROSECUTE crime in most cases, if they decide NOT to do so when there is clear moral and factual basis to do so, then there isn’t a whole lot you can do about it if unless you want to prosecute them for the resulting crimes as a co-conspirator guilty of misprision of felony as your own private attorney general. If you aren’t willing to take this route, there is NOTHING you can do about their OMISSION in prosecuting the injurious behavior complained of in your criminal complaint.
We liken this problem to junk mail. When people send you junk mail you didn’t ask for or authorize them to send, can they create a legally enforceable obligation on your part for NOT opening it, or even if you DO open it, to do the things identified in it, even if they are MORALLY a good IDEA but do not constitute a valid civil obligation?
THE ANSWER IS NO!
The same rules apply when YOU are dealing with the government. Whatever you send them behaves as the moral equivalent of JUNK mail unless you have a prior CONTRACTUAL or LEGAL relationship with them to do something established by their express written or verbal consent. Such a relationship is called a “privity”. Without legal evidence of the existence of such a written or verbal “privity”, you cannot satisfy your burden of proving an enforceable right in court against the person you sent the correspondence to.
However, this technique requires the involvement of a court and not an administrative process exclusively.
3. COMMERCIAL OFFER UNDER THE UCC AS A MERCHANT
A FOURTH option when dealing with the government is that they are requesting or using PROPERTY or your SERVICES without your consent, and thus engaging in an unconstitutional “TAKING without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In this scenario, you must send them in effect a legal notice or INVOICE as a Merchant offering them the use of the property and setting the cost of doing so and giving them a time limit to respond, and establishing acceptance for a failure to respond. We cover this in:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5-5.7
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
HOWEVER, this is NOT called an “Affidavit of Truth”, it’s called an INVOICE or an OFFER IN COMMERCE.
This approach is based on the idea that someone is STEALING or USING your private property or rights without your consent, and that you are a Merchant in all cases SELLING that property for a fee that is collectible under a proposal or agreement, not unlike the following:
Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
The above agreement, BTW, is used frequently on this site to accomplish the main approach to defending yourself against government greed and corruption.
This process is best accomplished with the involvement of a court, because if you don’t involve one, you may end up in the situation described below where you are criminally prosecuted:
Unlawful Methods of Protecting Your Rights that Should Be Avoided, Form #08.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/UnlawfulWaysProtRights.pdf
4. CONCLUSION
Thus, ON THIS SITE, we will NOT tolerate or respond to any effort to acquire or enforce an administrative judgement without legal process against anyone, whether PRIVATE or PUBLIC, who literally sends JUNK MAIL to others identified as an “affidavit of truth”. Nor will we participate in any effort to collect in connection with by filing administrative liens upon government officials. That is a recipe for DISASTER.
All inquiries about such a subject will be DELETED everywhere on this site that they are found. The most effective way to create commercial obligations is section 3 above, and we advocate it in our Path to Freedom, Form #09.015. We DO NOT, however, identify this process as an “affidavit of truth”, nor do we authorize any of our members to call it that. It is called an INVOICE or a OFFER in commerce.